William  Parks  Club  Publications 

No.  1 

Edited  by 

EARL  GREGG  SWEM 

Librarian  ff-'illiam  and  Mary  College 


This  is  copy  No. 
of  an  edition  of  190  copies 


AN 

INQUIRY 

INTO    THE 

RIGHTS  of  the  BRITISH  Colonies, 

By  RICHARD  BLAND,  of  VIRGINIA 


Edited  by 

EARL  GREGG  SWEM 

Librarian,  William  and  Mary  College 


WI  LLI  AMSBU  RG,    1766 
Reprinted   by  the  APPEALS  PRESS,  Inc. 

FOR  THE  WILLIAM  PARKS  CLUB 
RICHMOND,   1922 


COPYRIGHT  1922 

by 
WILLIAM  PARKS  CLUB 


INTRODUCTION 


Richard  Bland  was  born  May  6. 1719,  the  son  of  Richard  Bland  (1665- 
1720),  of  Berkeley  and  Jordan's  Point,  and  his  second  wife,  Elizabeth, 
daughter  of  Hon.  William  Randolph  I,  of  Turkey  Island.  The  first 
Richard  Bland  was  the  son  of  Hon.  Theodorick  Bland  (1629-1669)  of 
Westover,  immigrant  ancestor  of  the  family  in  Virginia,  and  his  wife 
Anne,  daughter  of  Governor  Richard  Bennett  of  Virginia.  Richard 
Bland,  the  author  of  the  "Inquiry,"  married  first  Anne,  daughter  of 
Col,  Peter  Poythress,  by  whom  he  had  twelve  children.  His  second 
wife  was  Elizabeth  Harrison.  By  this  marriage  there  was  no  issue.  (1) 
According  to  some  accounts  his  second  wife  is  said  to  have  been  Eliza 
beth  Boiling,  daughter  of  Major  John  Boiling  and  Elizabeth  Blair,  the 
daughter  of  Dr.  Archibald  Blair.  (2)  He  was  educated  at  William 
and  Mary  College,  and  at  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  but  of  his  life 
at  either  institution  we  have  little  information.  He  first  took  his 
seat  from  Prince  George  in  the  House  of  Burgesses,  in  1742,  and 
from  that  time  until  1775,  he  served  continuously.  He  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  conventions  of  March  1775,  July  1775,  Dec.  1775,  and 
May  1776,  the  bodies  that  performed  legislative  functions  until  the 
establishment  of  the  State  constitution.  He  was  also  a  member  of 
the  first  House  of  Delegates,  serving  until  his  death,  which  occurred 
in  Williamsburg  Oct.  26,  1776.  He  was  buried  at  Jordan's  Point, 
Nov.  7,  1776.  He  was  succeeded  in  the  House  by  Edmund  Ruffin. 

In  the  February  session  of  the  Assembly  of  1759  an  act  was 
passed  (4)  appointing  Edward  Montague  agent  for  Virginia  in  Eng 
land,  and  a  committee,  of  which  Bland  was  one,  was  selected  for 
carrying  on  a  correspondence  with  Montague.  (5)  In  the  October 
session  of  1764,  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  House  of  Burgesses 
to  draw  up  an  address  to  the  King,  a  memorial  to  the  Lords,  and  a 
Remonstrance  to  the  House  of  Commons,  respecting  taxation  imposed 
upon  them  by  any  other  power  than  that  derived  from  their  own  con 
sent.  The  committee  as  originally  appointed  did  not  contain  Eland's 
name.  He  was  added  to  the  committee  on  Nov.  20.  The  usual  belief 
among  historians  is  that  Bland  wrote  the  Address,  Memorial  and 
Remonstrance.  (6)  It  is  probable  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  three, 
but  I  have  found  no  authority  for  this.  In  the  proceedings  of  the 
House,  he  always  occupied  a  commanding  position.  For  most  of  the 
period  of  his  service  he  was  a  member  of  the  leading  committees, 
and  his  services  were  always  in  demand  for  drawing  up  memorials. 
In  the  session  of  1765,  he  opposed  the  resolutions  of  Henry  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  premature.  In  1765  he  was  appointed  one  of 


(1)  Grigsby  Virginia  Convention   of  1776,   p.    57-67.      Richmond  Critic, 
July  9,  1888). 

(2)  (Pocahontas  and  her  descendants,  p.  12.     Also  William  and  Mary 
College  Quarterly,  v.  5.  p.  157). 

(4)  (Hening,  v.  7,  p.  276). 

(5)  (See   Proceedings   of  this   committee   in   the  Virginia   Magazine  of 
History,  v.   9,   10,   11    and   12). 

(6)  (For   the    text   of   the   threo   see   Journal    of   House   of   Burgesses, 
Dec.  18,  1764). 


[     VI     ] 

the  trustees  for  the  batter  management  and  carrying  on  of  the 
Indian  trade.  In  1769,  he  was  one  of  the  first  to  sign  the  non-importa 
tion  agreement.  On  March  12,  1773,  he  was  appointed  by  the  House 
a  member  of  the  committee  of  correspondence  with  the  sister  col 
onies.  (7) 

In  the  convention  of  March,  1775,  he  opposed  Henry's  resolution 
to  arm  the  colony,  believing  still  in  a  policy  of  conciliation.  (8)  By 
the  convention  of  July  1775,  he  was  chosen  a  member  of  the  com 
mittee  of  safety,  the  executive  body  in  control  during  the  interreg 
num  preceding  the  establishment  of  the  State  government.  (9) 

In  the  convention  of  Aug.  1774,  he  was  elected  a  delegate  to  the 
first  Continental  Congress.  He  was  present  in  Philadelphia  through 
out  the  session  of  the  congress.  By  the  convention  of  March,  1775, 
he  was  elected  to  the  second  Continental  Congress;  he  was  present 
on  May  10,  1775,  but  seems  to  have  left  on  account  of  ill  health.  He 
was  selected  to  the  Continental  Congress  on  Aug.  11,  1775,  by  the 
convention.  The  next  day  he  declined  to  accept  the  honor,  giving  as 
his  reason  that  he  was  advanced  in  age,  and  almost  sightless. 

In  June,  1775,  a  wholly  unwarranted  charge  was  brought  against 
Bland,  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Sheild,  who  had  just  returned  from  Eng 
land  in  holy  orders.  In  the  issue  of  July  8,  1775,  of  Dixon  &  Hunter's 
Virginia  Gazette,  a  letter  from  Richard  Bland  addressed  to  Samuel 
Sheild  is  published,  in  which  the  writer  demands  proof  for  the  charge 
made  by  Sheild  that  Bland  had  solicited  a  pecuniary  appointment 
from  the  British  government,  in  return  for  a  promise  to  support  the 
ministerial  measures  in  America.  In  the  Virginia  Gazette  of  July 
22,  1775;  Sheild  states  his  charges,  substantially  as  follows:  Before 
he  left  England,  a  friend  had  reported  to  him  that  he  had  seen  a  letter 
from  one  of  the  delegates  of  Virginia  asking  for  a  position  as  the 
gatherer  of  duties  on  tea,  who  promised  in  return  that  he  would  sup 
port  the  policies  of  the  administration.  When  several  names  were 
mentioned  by  Sheild,  they  were  declared  by  his  friend  to  be  innocent. 
When  Eland's  name  was  mentioned,  the  friend  evaded  an  answer. 
This  was  all  that  there  was  of  Sheild's  charge.  On  July  22,  Bland 
asked  the  convention  then  in  session  to  investigate  the  charges.  The 
investigation  was  made  on  the  28th,  and  after  the  examination  of 
the  Rev..  Samuel  Sheild,  the  Rev.  John  Hurt,  and  many  other  witnesses, 
the  house  found  that  the  reports  were  "utterly  false  and  groundless." 
The  result  of  this  examination  was  published  in  the  Virginia  Gazette 
of  Aug.  5,  1775. 

Upon  the  death  of  John  Robinson,  who  had  been  both  Speaker  and 
Treasurer,  Richard  Bland  was  one  of  the  candidates  for  the  vacant 
position.  Bland  was  in  favor  of  the  separation  of  the  offices.  In  a 
letter  to  R.  H.  Lee,  May  22,  1766,  he  notifies  the  other  of  his  inten 
tion  to  run  for  the  office,  tho  it  had  been  reported  to  him  that  Lee 


(7)  (The   letters   and    proceeding's   of   this    committee    from   March    12, 
1773,  to  April  7,  1775,  are  printed  in  the  Virginia  Calendar  of  State  Papers, 
v.   8,   p.   1-74;. 

(8)  (1  Henry's  Henry,  258,  quotiner  Judge  Tucker). 

(9)  (Hening,  v.  9,  p.  4C.)    The  Journal  of  the  Committee  of  Safety,  Feb. 
7,  1776 — July  4.  1776,  is  printed  in  thp  Virginia  Calendar  of  State  Papers, 
v.   8,  p.   75-239. 

(10)  (Sou.  Lit.  Messeng-er,  v.  27,  p.  116). 


[    VII     ] 

would  be  a  candidate.  In  the  same  letter  Bland  says  he  is  considering 
the  establishment  of  the  scheme  of  a  loan  office  or  public  bank,  with 
the  intention  to  propose  this  in  the  assembly.  (10) 

Few  of  Eland's  letters  remain.  In  the  Virginia  Magazine  of  His 
tory,  v.  6,  p.  127-134,  a  long  letter,  dated  Aug.  1,  1771,  to  Thomas 
Adams,  at  that  time  in  England,  is  printed.  In  this  Bland  expresses 
!his  views  on  the  movement  for  a  bishopric  in  America,  and  on  the 
emissions  of  paper  money,  and  gives  his  opinion  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Horrocks,  and  of  Edward  Montague,  the  late  agent  in  England.  This 
letter  was  reprinted  with  corrections  in  the  William  and  Mary  Quar 
terly,  v.  5,  p.  150-156.  In  the  Bland  Papers,  edited  by  Charles  Camp 
bell,  and  published  in  1840,  there  are  only  two  letters  from  Richard 
Bland.  One,  Feb.  20,  1775,  relative  to  his  election,  and  the  other,  July 
25,  1775,  asking  some  friend  to  attend  the  examination  of  the  charges 
against  him. 

Edmund  Randolph  calls  him  the  Virginia  Antiquarian.  Roger 
Atkinson  in  a  letter  to  Samuel  Pleasants,  Oct.  1,  1774,  refers  to  him 
as  "Lieutenant  Colonel  Bland,  a  very  well  experienced  veteran  at  the 
senate  or  the  bar — staunch  and  tough  as  whitleather — has  something 
of  the  look  of  musty  old  parchments  which  he  handleth  and  studieth 
much.  He  is  also  a  great  chronologer  and  is  a  conjurer.  He  formerly 
wrote  a  treatise  on  water  baptism  amongst  the  Quakers,  which  he 
miscalled  the  Quaker  doctrine  of  water  baptism — for  you  know  they 
deny  all  water  baptism — him  you  know."  (11)  Jefferson's  character 
ization  in  his  letter  to  Wirt  (12)  is  well  known:  "Your  characters 
are  inimitably  and  justly  drawn.  I  am  not  certain  if  more  might  not 
be  said  of  Colonel  Richard  Bland.  He  was  the  most  learned  and 
logical  man  of  those  who  took  prominent  lead  in  public  affairs,  pro 
found  in  constitutional  lore,  a  most  ungraceful  speaker,  (as  were  Pey 
ton  Randolph  and  Robinson,  in  a  remarkable  degree.)  He  wrote  the 
first  pamphlet  on  the  nature  of  the  connection  with  Great  Britain 
which  had  any  pretension  to  accuracy  of  view  on  that  subject,  but  it 
was  a  singular  one.  He  would  set  out  on  sound  principles,  pursue 
them  logically  till  he  found  them  leading  to  the  precipice  which  he 
had  to  leap,  start  back  alarmed,  then  resume  his  ground,  go  over  it 
in  another  direction,  be  led  again  by  the  correctness  of  his  reasoning 
to  the  same  place,  and  again  back  about,  and  try  other  processes  to 
reconcile  right  and  wrong,  but  finally  left  his  reader  and  himself 
bewildered  between  the  steady  index  of  the  compass  in  their  hand, 
and  the  phantasm  to  which  it  seemed  to  point.  Still,  there  was  more 
sound  matter  in  his  pamphlet  than  in  the  celebrated  Farmer's  letters, 
which  were  really  but  an  ignis  fatuus,  leading  us  from  true  principles." 

In  a  letter  to  Edward  Coles  (13)  on  the  subject  of  slaves,  Jefferson 
thus  alludes  to  Eland's  interest  in  alleviating  their  condition:  "In  the 
first  or  second  session  of  the  Legislature  after  I  became  a  member,  I 
drew  to  this  subject  the  attention  of  Col,  Bland,  one  of  the  oldest,  ablest, 
and  most  respected  members,  and  he  undertook  to  move  for  certain 
moderate  extensions  of  the  protection  of  the  laws  to  these  people. 
I  seconded  his  motion,  and,  as  a  younger  member,  was  more  spared 
in  the  debate;  but  he  was  denounced  as  an  enemy  of  his  country,  and 
was  treated  with  the  grossest  indecorum." 


(11)  (Va.  Magazine  of  History,  v.  15,  p.  356). 

(12)  (Ford's  Jefferson,  v.  9,  p.  474). 

(13)  (Ford's  Jefferson,  v.  9,  p.  477). 


L   viii    ] 

Bland  was  known  to  have  collected  old  papers  and  documents  re 
lating  to  the  history  of  Virginia.  In  a  letter  dated  Nov.  3,  1776,  to 
Thomas  Jefferson,  then  in  Williamsburg,  Richard  Henry  Lee  says  in 
a  postscript,  "Let  every  method  be  essayed  to  get  the  valuable  old 
papers  that  Col.  Richard  Bland  was  possessed  of."  (14)  Some  of  the 
Bland  papers  passed  to  Jefferson,  and  from  him  to  the  Library 
of  Congress.  (15) 

In  1840,  Charles  Campbell,  the  historian,  published  in  two  small 
volumes  "The  Bland  Papers;  being  a  selection  from  the  manuscripts 
of  Colonel  Theodorick  Bland,  Jr.,  of  Prince  George  County,  Virginia. 
To  which  are  prefixed  an  introduction,  and  a  memorial  of  Colonel 

Bland Petersburg,  Printed  by  Edmund  and  Julian  C.  Ruffin."     On 

pages  v-x,  Mr.  Campbell  gives  a  description  of  the  papers  as  he  found 
them.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  only  two  letters  of  Col.  Richard 
Bland  are  in  the  lot. 

For  a  discussion  of  Eland's  part  in  the  Stamp  Act  incident,  see 
L.  G.  Tyler  in  the  William  and  Mary  Quarterly,  v.  18,  p.  163,  164; 
v.  19,  p.  31-41,  p.  220.  Bancroft's  appreciation  of  Bland  may  be  found 
in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  v.  5,  p.  442. 

Other  references  that  may  be  useful  to  the  student  are  the  follow 
ing:  Letter  of  Jerman  B£ker  in  the  William  and  Mary  Quarterly, 
v.  12,  p.  239;  Letter  of  William  Robinson  to  the  Bishop  of  London, 
in  Perry's  Papers  relating  to  the  history  of  the  Church  of  Virginia, 
1650-1776,  p.  463-470;  Familiae  Minorum  Gentium,  v.  2,  p.  421-428, 
genealogical  notes  about  the  Bland  family,  an  abstract  of  which  is 
printed  in  the  William  and  Mary  Quarterly,  v.  15,  p.  47. 

In  addition  to  his  present  Inquiry,  the  following  three  titles  are 
known  to  be  by  Eland's  pen :  there  are  two  other  productions  of  which 
we  know  by  title  only,  the  Treatise  against  the  Quakers  on  water 
baptism,  mentioned  by  Roger  Atkinson  in  one  of  his  letters,  and  an 
article  against  the  idea  of  an  American  episcopate,  mentioned  by 
Governor  Tazewell;  it  is  likely  that  these  were  printed  as  letters  in 
issues  of  the  Virginia  Gazette,  of  which  no  copies  are  extant: 

A  fragment  on  the  pistole  fee,  claimed  by  the  Governor  of  Virginia, 
1753.  Edited  by  Worthington  Chauncey  Ford,  Brooklyn,  1891.  43  p. 
(Winnowings  in  American  history.  Virginia  Tracts,  No.  1). 

A  letter  to  the  clergy  of  Virginia,  in  which  the  conduct  of  the 
General  Assembly  is  vindicated  against  the  reflexions  contained  in  a 
letter  to  the  lords  of  trade  and  plantations  from  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
London.  By  Richard  Bland,  Esq.;  one  of  the  representatives  in  assem 
bly  for  the  county  of  Prince  George.  Ne  quid  falsi  dicere  audeat,  ne 
quid  veri  non  audeat.  Cicero.  Williamsburg:  Printed  by  William 
Hunter.  1760.  v,  3-20  p.  Copy  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  Boston 
Athenaeum,  Library  Company  of  Philadelphia. 


(14)  (Letters  of  R.  H.  Lee,  od.  by  J.  C.  Ballagh,  v.  1,  p.  225). 

(15)  (Preface  to  Hening's  Statutes.     Johnston's  History  of  the  Library 
of   Congress.     Miss   Kingsbury's    edition    of  the   Records   of  the   London 
Company,  published  by  the  Library  of  Congress). 


The  colonel  dismounted:  or  the  rector  vindicated.  In  a  letter  ad 
dressed  to  his  reverence;  containing  a  dissertation  upon  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  colony.  Williamsburg;  Printed  by  Joseph  Royle.  1764. 
30,  xvii  p.  Only  copy  is  in  Library  of  Congress. 

The  copy  from  which  the  present  text  of  the  Inquiry  is  taken  is  in 
the  Library  of  Congress,  and  has  on  the  title  page  the  autograph  of 
Jona.  Smith.  The  full  title  is  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Rights  of  the 
British  Colonies.  Intended  as  an  answer  to  the  Regulations  lately 
made  concerning  the  Colonies,  and  the  Taxes  imposed  upon  them 
considered.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  author  of  that  pamphlet. 
By  Richard  Bland  of  Virginia.  Williamsburg,  Printed  by  Alexander 
Purdie  &  Co.,  1766."  This  was  reprinted  in  London,  in  the  Political 
Register,  for  1769,  p.  9-27.  The  text  in  the  Political  Register  has  been 
carefully  compared  with  the  original  pamphlet,  and  many  considerable 
changes  are  found  to  have  been  made  in  the  punctuation.  A  separate 
edition  of  the  Inquiry  was  also  printed  in  London  bearing  the  imprint: 
Wiliamsburg:  Printed  by  Alexander  Purdie  and  Co.,  London.  Re 
printed  by  J.  Almon,  opposite  Burlington  House,  Picadilly,  1769.  Copies 
are  in  the  John  Carter  Brown  Library,  and  the  library  of  the  His 
torical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  This  is  probably  the  text  as  printed 
in  the  Political  Register,  repaged,  as  the  title  is  a  caption  title. 

At  the  time  Charles  Campbell  prepared  "The  Bland  Papers"  there 
was  a  portrait  of  Bland  at  Jordan's  Point.  The  portrait  was  then  in 
the  mutilated  condition  in  which  it  had  been  left  by  the  British  soldiers 
at  the  time  of  the  revolution. 

It  has  seemed  to  the  editor  that  it  would  be  helpful  to  the  student 
to  have  full  titles  of  the  books  to  which  Bland  refers  in  his  notes. 
Some  of  these  books  were  in  his  own  library,  others  were  in  the 
library  of  the  council  of  Virginia.  Titles  of  the  first  editions  of 
all  such  books  are  accordingly  printed  in  the  Appendix,  but  it  is 
not  presumed  that  these  were  the  editions  Bland  used.  In  pro 
viding  this  information,  Mr.  Charles  H.  Hastings,  of  the  Card  Di 
vision  of  the  Library  of  Congress,  has  been  most  attentive,  and 
acknowledgment  is  hereby  gratefully  made  to  him.  For  permis 
sion  to  photograph  the  original  pamphlet  in  the  Library  of  Con 
gress,  I  wish  to  express  my  appreciation  to  Dr.  Herbert  Putnam, 
Librarian  of  Congress.  For  helpful  suggestions  I  am  indebted  to 
Hon.  Robert  M.  Hughes  of  Norfolk,  Prof.  Oscar  L.  Shewmake  of  the 
College  of  William  and  Mary,  and  Frederick  C.  Hicks,  Law  Librarian 
of  Columbia  University,  and  I  wish  to  acknowledge,  most  gratefully, 
their  assistance 

E.  G.  SWEM, 

William  and  Mary  College. 


AN 

INQUIRY 

INTO  THE 

RIGHTS  of  the  BRITISH  Colonies, 

Intended  as  an  Anfwer  to 

'The   Regulations  lately   made  concerning  the   Colonies, 
and  the  Taxes  impofed  upon  them  confidered. 

In  a  Letter  addreffed  to  the  Author  of  that  Pamphlet. 

By   RICHARD   BLAND,   of  VIRGINIA. 

Dedit  omnibus  Deus  pro  virili  portione  fapientiam,  ut 
et  inaudita  invejligare  pojjent  et  audita  perpendere. 

LACTANTIUS. 


WILLI AMSBURG : 

Printed    by    ALEXANDER    PURDIE,    &    Co 
MDCCLXVI. 


[     3 


AN 


INQUIRY 

INTO    THE 

RIGHTS  of  the  BRITISH  Colonies 


S  I  R, 

I  TAKE  the  Liberty  to  addrefs  you,  as  the  Author 
of    "    The    Regulations    lately    made    concerning 
"  the    Colonies,    and    the    Taxes    impofed    upon 
"  them    confidered."        It    is    not    to    the    Man, 
whoever  you  are,  that  I  addrefs  myfelf;  but  it  is  to 
the  Author  of  a   Pamphlet  which,   according  to  the 
Light  I  view  it  in,  endeavours  to  fix  Shackles  upon 
the    American    Colonies:      Shackles    which,    however 
nicely  polifhed,  can  by  no  Means  sit  eafy  upon  Men 
who  have  juft   Sentiments   of  their  own   Rights   and 
Liberties. 

You  have  indeed  brought  this  Trouble  upon  yourfelf, 
for  you  fay  that  "  many  Steps  have  been  lately  taken 

'  by  the  Miniftry  to  cement  and  perfect  the  neceffary 
:c  Connexion  between  the  Colonies  and  the  Mother 

'  Kingdom,  which  every  Man  who  is  fincerely  in- 
"  tere&ed  in  what  is  interesting  to  his  Country  will 


[     4     ] 

"  anxioufly  confider  the  Propriety  of,  will  inquire  into 
"  the  Information,  and  canvas  the  Principles  upon 
"  which  they  have  been  adopted;  and  will  be  ready 
"  to  applaud  what  has  been  well  done,  condemn  what 
'  has  been  done  amifs,  and  fuggeft  any  Emendations, 
"  Improvements,  or  Additions,  which  may  be  within 
"  his  Knowledge,  and  occur  to  his  Reflexion." 

Encouraged  therefore  by  fo  candid  an  Invitation,  I 
have  undertaken  to  examine,  with  an  honeft  Plainnefs 
and  Freedom,  whether  the  Miniftry,  by  impofing  Taxes 
upon  the  Colonies  by  Authority  of  Parliament,  have 
purfued  a  wife  and  falutary  Plan  of  Government,  or 
whether  they  have  exerted  pernicious  and  definitive 
Acls  of  Power. 

I  pretend  not  to  concern  myfelf  with  the  Regulations 
lately  made  to  encourage  Population  in  the  new  Ac- 
quifitions:  Time  can  only  determine  whether  the 
Reafons  upon  which  they  have  been  founded  are  agree 
able  to  the  Maxims  of  Trade  and  found  Policy,  or  not. 
However,  I  will  venture  to  obferve  that  if  the  moft 
powerful  inducement  towards  peopling  thofe  Acquifi- 
tions  is  to  arife  from  the  Expectation  of  a  Conftitution 
to  be  eftablifhed  in  them  fimiliar  to  the  other  Royal 
Governments  in  America,  it  muft  be  a  ftrong  Circum- 
ftance,  in  my  Opinion,  againft  their  being  fettled  by 
Englijhmen,  or  even  by  Foreigners,  who  do  not  live 
under  the  moft  defpotick  Government;  fince,  upon 
your  Principles  of  Colony  Government,  fuch  a  Con 
ftitution  will  not  be  worth  their  Acceptance. 

The  Queftion  is  whether  the  Colonies  are  reprefented 
in  the  Britijh  Parliament  or  not?  You  affirm  it  to  be 
an  indubitable  FacT:  that  they  are  reprefented,  and  from 
thence  you  infer  a  Right  in  the  Parliament  to  impofe 
Taxes  of  every  Kind  upon  them.  You  do  not  infift 


upon  the  Power,  but  upon  the  Right  of  Parliament  to 
impofe  Taxes  upon  the  Colonies.  This  is  certainly  a 
very  proper  Diftinclion,  as  Right  and  Power  have  very 
different  Meanings,  and  convey  very  different  Ideas: 
For  had  you  told  us  that  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain  have  Power,  by  the  Fleets  and  Armies  of  the 
Kingdom,  to  impofe  Taxes  and  to  raife  Contributions 
upon  the  Colonies,  I  fhould  not  have  prefumed  to 
difpute  the  Point  with  you;  but  as  you  infift  upon  the 
Right  only,  I  muft  beg  Leave  to  differ  from  you  in 
Opinion,  and  fhall  give  my  Reafons  for  it. 

But  I  muft  firft  recapitulate  your  Arguments  in  Sup 
port  of  this  Right  in  the  Parliament.  You  fay  "  the 
"  Inhabitants  of  the  Colonies  do  not  indeed  choofe 
:f  Members  of  Parliament,  neither  are  nine  Tenths  of 
'  the  People  of  Britain  Electors;  for  the  Right  of 
>c  Election  is  annexed  to  certain  Species  of  Property, 
pi  to  peculiar  Franchifes,  and  to  Inhabitancy  in  fome 
"  particular  Places.  But  thefe  Defcriptions  comprehend 
:c  only  a  very  fmall  Part  of  the  Lands,  the  Property 
;'  and  People  of  Britain',  all  Copy-Hold,  all  Leafe- 
>c  Hold  Eftates  under  the  Crown,  under  the  Church, 
''  or  under  private  Perfons,  though  for  Terms  ever 
"  fo  long;  all  landed  Property  in  fhort  that  is  not 
''  Freehold,  and  all  monied  Property  whatfoever,  are 
:c  excluded.  The  Poffeffors  of  thefe  have  no  Votes 
<(  in  the  Election  of  Members  of  Parliament;  Women 
'c  and  Perfons  under  Age,  be  their  Property  ever  fo 
"  large,  and  all  of  it  Freehold,  have  nonef  The 
>c  Merchants  of  London,  a  numerous  and  refpectable 
:c  Body  of  Men,  whofe  Opulence  exceeds  all  that 
:'  America  can  collect;  the  Proprietors  of  that  vaft 
'c  Accumulation  of  Wealth,  the  Publick  Funds;  the 
"  Inhabitants  of  Leeds,  of  Halifax,  of  Birmingham. 


"  and  of  Manchester •,  Towns  that  are  each  of  them 
"  larger  than  the  largeft  in  the  Plantations;  many  of 
"  leffer  Note,  that  are  incorporated;  and  that  great 
"  Corporation  the  Eaft  India  Company,  whofe  Rights 
"  over  the  Countries  they  poffefs  fall  very  little  fhort 
"  of  Sovereignty,  and  whofe  Trade  and  whofe  Fleets 
"  are  fufficient  to  conftitute  them  a  maritime  Power, 
"  are  all  in  the  fame  Circumftances:  And  yet  are  they 
"  not  reprefented  in  Parliament?  Is  their  vaft  Property 
"  fubject  to  Taxation  without  their  Confent?  Are  they 
"  all  arbitrarily  bound  by  Laws  to  which  they  have 
"  not  agreed?  The  Colonies  are  exactly  in  the  fame 
"  Situation;  all  Britifb  Subjects  are  really  in  the  fame;. 
"  none  are  actually,  all  are  virtually,  reprefented  in 
"  Parliament:  For  every  Member  of  Parliament  fits 
"  in  the  Houfe  not  as  a  Reprefentative  of  his  own 
"  Conftituents,  but  as  one  of  that  auguft  Affembly  by 
"  which  all  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain  are  repre- 
"  fented." 

This  is  the  Sum  of  what  you  advance,  in  all  the 
Pomp  of  Parliamentary  Declamation,  to  prove  that 
the  Colonies  are  reprefented  in  Parliament,  and  there 
fore  fubjecl:  to  their  Taxation;  but  notwithftanding 
this  Way  of  reafoning,  I  cannot  comprehend  how  Men 
who  are  excluded  from  voting  at  the  Election  of  Mem 
bers  of  Parliament  can  be  reprefented  in  that  Affembly, 
or  how  thofe  who  are  elected  do  not  fit  in  the  Houfe 
as  Reprefentatives  of  their  Conftituents.  Thefe  Affer- 
tions  appear  to  me  not  only  paradoxical,  but  contrary 
to  the  fundamental  Principles  of  the  Englijh  Conftitu- 
tion. 

To  illuftrate  this  important  Difquifition,  I  conceive 
we  muft  recur  to  the  civil  Constitution  of  England,  and 
from  thence  deduce  and  afcertain  the  Rights  and  Pri- 


vileges  of  the  People  at  the  firft  Eftablifhment  of  the 
Government,  and  difcover  the  Alterations  that  have 
been  made  in  them  from  Time  to  Time;  and  it  is  from 
the  Laws  of  the  Kingdom,  founded  upon  the  Principles 
of  the  Law  of  Nature,  that  we  are  to  mow  the  Obli 
gation  every  Member  of  the  State  is  under  to  pay 
Obedience  to  its  Institutions.  From  thefe  Principles  I 
{hall  endeavour  to  prove  that  the  Inhabitants  of  Britain, 
who  have  no  Vote  in  the  Election  of  Members  of  Par 
liament,  are  not  reprefented  in  that  Affembly,  and  yet 
that  they  owe  Obedience  to  the  Laws  of  Parliament; 
which,  as  to  them,  are  constitutional,  and  not  arbitrary. 
As  to  the  Colonies,  I  mall  confider  them  afterwards. 

Now  it  is  a  Fact,  as  certain  as  Hiftory  can  make  it, 
that  the  prefent  civil  Conftitution  of  England  derives 
its  Original  from  thofe  Saxons  who,  coming  over  to 
the  Affiftance  of  the  Britons  in  the  Time  of  their  King 
Fortigern,  made  themfelves  Matters  of  the  Kingdom, 
and  eftablifhed  a  Form  of  Government  in  it  fimilar  to 
that  they  had  been  accuftomed  to  live  under  in  their 
native  Country*;  as  fimilar,  at  leaft,  as  the  Difference 
of  their  Situation  and  Circumftances  would  permit. 
This  Government,  like  that  from  whence  they  came, 
was  founded  upon  Principles  of  the  moft  perfect  Li 
berty:  The  conquered  Lands  were  divided  among  the 
Individuals  in  Proportion  to  the  Rank  they  held  in  the 
Nation|;  and  every  Freeman,  that  is,  every  Free 
holder,  was  a  Member  of  their  Wittinagemot,  or 
Parliament^.  The  other  Part  of  the  Nation,  or  the 
Non-Proprietors  of  Land,  were  of  little  Eftimation§. 

*  Petyt's  Rights  of  the  Com.  Brady's  Comp.  Hifl.  Rapin. 
Squire's  Inquiry. 

t  Caefar  de  Bell.  Gall.  Tacitus  de  Germ.  C.  28.  Temple's 
Mifc. 

f   Tacitus  de  Germ,  C.  11. 

§  Ibid.  C.  25. 


They,  as  in  Germany,  were  either  Slaves,  mere  Hewers 
of  Wood  and  Drawers  of  Water,  or  Freedmen;  who, 
being  of  foreign  Extraction,  had  been  manumitted  by 
their  Mafters,  and  were  excluded  from  the  high  Pri 
vilege  of  having  a  Share  in  the  Adminiftration  of  the 
Commonwealth,  unlefs  they  became  Proprietors  of 
Land  (which  they  might  obtain  by  Purchafe  or  Dona 
tion)  and  in  that  Cafe  they  had  a  Right  to  fit  with  the 
Freemen,  in  the  Parliament  or  fovereign  Legiflature 
of  the  State. 

How  long  this  Right  of  being  perfonally  prefent  in 
the  Parliament  continued,  or  when  the  Cuftom  of 
fending  Reprefentatives  to  this  great  Council  of  the 
Nation,  was  firft  introduced,  cannot  be  determined 
with  Precifion;  but  let  the  Cuftom  of  Reprefentation 
be  introduced  when  it  will,  it  is  certain  that  every 
Freeman,  or,  which  was  the  fame  Thing  in  the  Eye 
of  the  Conftitution,  every  Freeholder*,  had  a  Right 
to  vote  at  the  Election  of  Members  of  Parliament,  and 
therefore  might  be  faid,  with  great  Propriety,  to  be 
prefent  in  that  Affembly,  either  in  his  own  Perfon  or 
by  Reprefentation.  This  Right  of  Election  in  the 
Freeholders  is  evident  from  the  Statute  ift  Hen.  5. 
Ch.  ift,  which  limits  the  Right  of  Election  to  thofe 
Freeholders  only  who  are  refident  in  the  Counties  the 
Day  of  the  Date  of  the  Writ  of  Election;  but  yet  every 
refident  Freeholder  indifcriminately,  let  his  Freehold 
be  ever  fo  fmall,  had  a  Right  to  vote  at  the  Election 
of  Knights  for  his  County,  fo  that  they  were  actually 
reprefented:  And  this  Right  of  Election  continued 
until  it  was  taken  away  by  the  Statute  8th  Hen.  6. 
Ch.  7.  from  thofe  Freeholders  who  had  not  a  clear 
Freehold  Eftate  of  forty  Shillings  by  the  Year  at  the 
leaft. 

*  2  Inft.  27.     4  Inft.  2. 


t    9    1 

Now  this  Statute  was  deprivative  of  the  Right  of 
thofe  Freeholders  who  came  within  the  Defcription  of 
it;  but  of  what  did  it  deprive  them,  if  they  were  repre- 
fented  notwithftanding  their  Right  of  Election  was 
taken  from  them?  The  mere  Act  of  voting  was 
nothing,  of  no  Value,  if  they  were  reprefented  as  con- 
ftitutionally  without  it  as  with  it:  But  when  by  the 
fundamental  Principles  of  the  Conftitution  they  were 
to  be  confidered  as  Members  of  the  Legiflature,  and 
as  fuch  had  a  Right  to  be  prefent  in  Perfon,  or  to  fend 
their  Procurators  or  Attornies,  and  by  them  to  give 
their  Suffrage  in  the  fupreme  Council  of  the  Nation, 
this  Statute  deprived  them  of  an  effential  Right;  a 
Right  without  which,  by  the  ancient  Conftitution  of 
the  State,  all  other  Liberties  were  but  a  Species  of 
Bondage. 

As  thefe  Freeholders  then  were  deprived  of  their 
Rights  to  fubftitute  Delegates  to  Parliament,  they 
could  not  be  reprefented,  but  were  placed  in  the  fame 
Condition  with  the  Non-Proprietors  of  Land,  who 
were  excluded  by  the  original  Conftitution  from  having 
any  Share  in  the  Legiflature,  but  who,  notwithftanding 
fuch  Exclufion,  are  bound  to  pay  Obedience  to  the 
Laws  of  Parliament,  even  if  they  mould  confift  of 
nine  Tenths  of  the  People  of  Britain;  but  then  the 
Obligation  of  thefe  Laws  does  not  arife  from  their 
being  virtually  reprefented  in  Parliament,  but  from  a 
quite  different  Reafon. 

Men  in  a  State  of  Nature  are  abfolutely  free  and  in 
dependent  of  one  another  as  to  fovereign  Jurifdiction*, 
but  when  they  enter  into  a  Society,  and  by  their  own 

*  Fattel' s  Law  of  Nature.  Locke  on  Civil  Govern.  Wolla- 
fton's  Rel.  of  Nat. 

B 


Confent  become  Members  of  it,  they  muft  fubmit  to 
the  Laws  of  the  Society  according  to  which  they  agree 
to  be  governed;  for  it  is  evident,  by  the  very  Act  of 
Affociation,  that  each  Member  fubjects  himfelf  to  the 
Authority  of  that  Body  in  whom,  by  common  Confent, 
the  legiflative  Power  of  the  State  is  placed:  But  though 
they  muft  fubmit  to  the  Laws,  fo  long  as  they  remain 
Members  of  the  Society,  yet  they  retain  fo  much  of 
their  natural  Freedom  as  to  have  a  Right  to  retire  from 
the  Society,  to  renounce  the  Benefits  of  it,  to  enter 
into  another  Society,  and  to  fettle  in  another  Country; 
for  their  Engagements  to  the  Society,  and  their  Sub- 
miffion  to  the  publick  Authority  of  the  State,  do  not 
oblige  them  to  continue  in  it  longer  than  they  find  it 
will  conduce  to  their  Happinefs,  which  they  have  a 
natural  Right  to  promote.  This  natural  Right  re 
mains  with  every  Man,  and  he  cannot  juftly  be  de 
prived  of  it  by  any  civil  Authority.  Every  Perfon 
therefore  who  is  denied  his  Share  in  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  to  which  he  had  an  orginal  Right,  and  every 
Perfon  who  from  his  particular  Circumftances  is  ex 
cluded  from  this  great  Privilege,  and  refufes  to  exer- 
cife  his  natural  Right  of  quitting  the  Country,  but 
remains  in  it,  and  continues  to  exercife  the  Rights  of 
a  Citizen  in  all  other  Refpects,  muft  be  fubject  to  the 
Laws  which  by  thefe  Acts  he  implicitly,  or  to  ufe  your 
own  Phrafe,  virtually  confents  to:  For  Men  may 
fubject  themfelves  to  Laws,  by  confenting  to  them 
implicity;  that  is,  by  conforming  to  them,  by  adhering 
to  the  Society,  and  accepting  the  Benefits  of  its  Confti- 
tution,  as  well,  as  explicitly  and  directly,  in  their  own 
Perfons,  or  by  their  Reprefentatives  fubftituted  in  their 
Room*.  Thus,  if  a  Man  whofe  Property  does  not 

*   Wollajlon's  Rel.  of  Nat. 


[  II  ] 

entitle  him  to  be  an  Elector  of  Members  of  Parliament 
and  therefore  cannot  be  reprefented,  or  have  any  Share 
in  the  Legiflature,  "  inherits  or  takes  any  Thing  by 
"  the  Laws  of  the  Country  to  which  he  has  no  indu- 
"  bitable  Right  in  Nature,  or  which,  if  he  has  a  Right 
"  to  it,  he  cannot  tell  how  to  get  or  keep  without  the 
"  Aid  of  the  Laws  and  the  Advantage  of  Society, 
"  then,  when  he  takes  this  Inheritance,  or  whatever 
"  it  is,  with  it  he  takes  and  owns  the  Laws  that  gave 
"  it  him.  And  fmce  the  Security  he  has  from  the 
"  Laws  of  the  Country,  in  Refpect  of  his  Perfon  and 
"  Rights,  is  the  Equivalent  for  his  SubmhTion  to  them, 
"  he  cannot  accept  that  Security  without  being  obliged, 
6  in  Equity,  to  pay  this  Submiffion:  Nay  his  very 
"  continuing  in  the  Country  {hows  that  he  either  likes 
"  the  Conftitution,  or  likes  it  better,  notwithftanding 
"  the  Alteration  made  in  it  to  his  Difadvantage,  than 
"  any  other;  or  at  leaft  thinks  it  better,  in  his  Circum- 
"  ftances,  to  conform  to  it,  than  to  feek  any  other; 
"  that  is,  he  is  content  to  be  comprehended  in  it." 

From  hence  it  is  evident  that  the  Obligation  of  the 
Laws  of  Parliament  upon  the  People  of  Britain  who 
have  no  Right  to  be  Electors  does  not  arife  from  their 
being  virtually  reprefented,  but  from  a  quite  different 
Principle;  a  Principle  of  the  Law  of  Nature,  true, 
certain,  and  univerfal,  applicable  to  every  Sort  of 
Government,  and  not  contrary  to  the  common  Under- 
ftandings  of  Mankind. 

If  what  you  fay  is  a  real  Fact,  that  nine  Tenths  of 
the  People  of  Britain  are  deprived  of  the  high  Privilege 
of  being  Electors,  it  mows  a  great  Defect  in  the  pre- 
fent  Conftitution,  which  has  departed  fo  much  from 
its  original  Purity;  but  never  can  prove  that  thofe 
People  are  even  virtually  reprefented  in  Parliament. 


[       12      ] 

And  here  give  me  Leave  to  obferve  that  it  would  be 
a  Work  worthy  of  the  beft  patriotick  Spirits  in  the 
Nation  to  effectuate  an  Alteration  in  this  putrid  Part 
of  the  Conftitution;  and,  by  reftoring  it  to  its  priftine 
Perfection,  prevent  any  "  Order  or  Rank  of  the  Sub- 
"  jects  from  impofing  upon  or  binding  the  reft  without 
"  their  Confent."  But,  I  fear,  the  Gangrene  has 
taken  too  deep  Hold  to  be  eradicated  in  thefe  Days  of 
Venality. 

But  if  thofe  People  of  Britain  who  are  excluded  from 
being  Electors  are  not  reprefented  in  Parliament,  the 
Conclufion  is  much  ftronger  againft  the  People  of 
the  Colonies  being  reprefented;  who  are  confidered  by 
the  Britijb  Government  itfelf,  in  every  Inftance  of 
Parliamentary  Legislation,  as  a  diftinct  People.  It  has 
been  determined  by  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council 
that  "  Acts  of  Parliament  made  in  England  without 
"  naming  the  foreign  Plantations  will  not  bind  them*." 
Now  what  can  be  the  Reafon  of  this  Determination, 
but  that  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  are  of  Opinion 
the  Colonies  are  a  diftinct  People  from  the  Inhabitants 
of  Britain,  and  are  not  reprefented  in  Parliament.  If, 
as  you  contend,  the  Colonies  are  exactly  in  the  fame 
Situation  with  the  Subjects  in  Britain,  the  Laws  will  in 
every  Inftance  be  equally  binding  upon  them,  as  upon 
thofe  Subjects,  unlefs  you  can  difcover  two  Species  of 
virtual  Reprefentation;  the  one  to  refpect  the  Subjects 
in  Britain,  and  always  exifting  in  Time  of  Parliament; 
the  other  to  refpect  the  Colonies,  a  mere  Non-Entity, 
if  I  may  be  allowed  the  Term,  and  never  exifting  but 
when  the  Parliament  thinks  proper  to  produce  it  into 
Being  by  any  particular  Act  in  which  the  Colonies 

*  2  Peer  Williams. 


I     13    -J 

happen  to  be  named.     But  I  muft  examine  the  Cafe  of 
the  Colonies  more  diftinclly. 

It  is  in  vain  to  fearch  into  the  civil  Conftitution  of 
England  for  Directions  in  fixing  the  proper  Connexion 
b  etween  the  Colonies  and  the  Mother  Kingdom;  I  mean 
what  their  reciprocal  Duties  to  each  other  are,  and 
what  Obedience  is  due  from  the  Children  to  the  general 
Parent.  The  planting  Colonies  from  Britain  is  but  of 
recent  Date,  and  nothing  relative  to  fuch  Plantation  can 
be  collected  from  the  ancient  Laws  of  the  Kingdom; 
neither  can  we  receive  any  better  Information  by  ex 
tending  our  Inquiry  into  the  Hiftory  of  the  Colonies 
eftablimed  by  the  feveral  Nations  in  the  more  early 
Ages  of  the  World.  All  the  Colonies  (except  thofe  of 
Georgia  and  Nova  Scotia)  formed  from  the  Englifh 
Nation,  in  North  America,  were  planted  in  a  Manner, 
and  under  a  Dependence,  of  which  there  is  not  an  In- 
ftance  in  all  the  Colonies  of  the  Ancients;  and  there 
fore,  I  conceive,  it  muft  afford  a  good  Degree  of 
Surprife  to  find  an  Englijh  Civilian*  giving  it  as  his 
Sentiment  that  the  Englijh  Colonies  ought  to  be  go 
verned  by  the  Roman  Laws,  and  for  no  better  Reafon 
than  becaufe  the  Spanifh  Colonies,  as  he  fays,  are  go 
verned  by  thofe  Laws.  The  Romans  eftablimed  their 
Colonies  in  the  Midft  of  vanquifhed  Nations,  upon 
Principles  which  beft  fecured  their  Conquefts;  the  Pri 
vileges  granted  to  them  were  not  always  the  fame;  their 
Policy  in  the  Government  of  their  Colonies  and  the 
conquered  Nations  being  always  directed  by  arbitrary 
Principles  to  the  End  they  aimed  at,  the  fubjecting  the 
whole  Ea'rth  to  their  Empire.  But  the  Colonies  in 
North  America,  except  thofe  planted  within  the  prefent 
Century,  were  founded  by  Englijhmen;  who,  becoming 

*  Strahan  in  his  Preface  to  Domat. 


[-14    1 

private  Adventurers,  eftablifhed  themfelves,  without 
any  Expenfe  to  the  Nation,  in  this  uncultivated  and 
almoft  uninhabited  Country;  fothat  their  Cafe  is  plainly 
diftinguifhable  from  that  of  the  Roman,  or  any  other 
Colonies  of  the  ancient  World. 

As  then  we  can  receive  no  Light  from  the  Laws  of 
the  Kingdom,  or  from  ancient  Hiftory,  to  direct  us 
in  our  Inquiry,  we  muft  have  Recourfe  to  the  Law  of 
Nature,  and  thofe  Rights  of  Mankind  which  flow  from 
it. 

I  have  obferved  before  that  when  Subjects  are  de 
prived  of  their  civil  Rights,  or  are  dissatisfied  with  the 
Place  they  hold  in  the  Community,  they  have  a  natural 
Right  to  quit  the  Society  of  which  they  are  Members, 
and  to  retire  into  another  Country.  Now  when  Men 
exercife  this  Right,  and  withdraw  themfelves  from 
their  Country,  they  recover  their  natural  Freedom  and 
Independence:  The  Jurifdiction  and  Sovereignty  of  the 
State  they  have  quitted  ceafes;  and  if  they  unite,  and 
by  common  Confent  take  Poffeflion  of  a  new  Country, 
and  form  themfelves  into  a  political  Society,  they 
become  a  fovereign  State,  independent  of  the  State 
from  which  they  feparated.  If  then  the  Subjects 
of  England  have  a  natural  Right  to  relinquifh  their 
Country,  and  by  retiring  from  it,  and  affociating 
together,  to  form  a  new  political  Society  and  indepen 
dent  State,  they  muft  have  a  Right,  by  Compact  with 
the  Sovereign  of  the  Nation,  to  remove  into  a  new 
Country,  and  to  form  a  civil  Eftablifhment  upon  the 
Terms  of  the  Compact.  In  fuch  a  Cafe,  the  Terms 
of  the  Compact  muft  be  obligatory  and  binding  upon 
the  Parties;  they  muft  be  the  Magna  Charta,  the  fun 
damental  Principles  of  Government,  to  this  new  Society; 
and  every  Infringement  of  them  muft  be  wrong,  and 


I  -15     1 

may  be  oppofed.  It  will  be  neceffary  then  to  examine 
whether  any  fuch  Compact  was  entered  into  between 
the  Sovereign  and  thofe  Englijh  Subjects  who  eftablifhed 
themfelves  in  America. 

You  have  told  us  that  "  before  the  firft  and  great 
"  Act  of  Navigation  the  Inhabitants  of  North  America 
"  were  but  a  few  unhappy  Fugitives,  who  had  wan- 
;£  dered  thither  to  enjoy  their  civil  and  religious  Liber- 
"  ties,  which  they  were  deprived  of  at  Home."  If 
this  was  true,  it  is  evident,  from  what  has  been  faid 
upon  the  Law  of  Nature,  that  they  have  a  Right  to  a 
civil  independent  Eftablimment  of  their  own,  and  that 
Great  Britain  has  no  Right  to  interfere  in  it.  But  you 
have  been  guilty  of  a  grofs  Anachronifm  in  your  Chro 
nology,  and  a  great  Errour  in  your  Account  of  the 
firft  Settlement  of  the  Colonies  in  North  America;  for 
it  is  a  notorious  Fact  that  they  were  not  fettled  by  Fu 
gitives  from  their  native  Country,  but  by  Men  who 
came  over  voluntarily,  at  their  own  Expenfe,  and 
under  Charters  from  the  Crown,  obtained  for  that  Pur- 
pofe,  long  before  the  firft  and  great  Act  of  Navigation. 

The  firft  of  thefe  Charters  was  granted  to  Sir  Walter 
Raleigh  by  Queen  Elizabeth  under  her  great  Seal,  and 
was  confirmed  by  the  Parliament  of  England  in  the 
Year  i584*.  By  this  Charter  the  whole  Country  to 
be  poffeffed  by  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  was  granted  to  him, 
his  Heirs  and  AiTigns,  in  perpetual  Sovereignty,  in  as 
extenfive  a  Manner  as  the  Crown  could  grant,  or  had 
ever  granted  before  to  any  Perfon  or  Perfons,  with  full 
Power  of  Legiflation,  and  to  eftablifh  a  civil  Govern 
ment  in  it  as  near  as  conveniently  might  be  agreeable  to 

*  'This  Charter  is  printed  at  large  in  Hakluyt's  Voyages,  P.  725, 
Folio  Edition,  Anno  1589;  and  the  Subftance  of  it  is  in  the  3d  Fol, 
of  Salmon's  Mod.  Rift.  P.  424. 


[     16    ] 

the  Form  of  the  Englijh  Government  and  Policy  thereof. 
The  Country  was  to  be  united  to  the  Realm  of  England 
in  perfect  LEAGUE  AND  AMITY,  was  to  be  within  the 
Allegiance  of  the  Crown  of  England,  and  to  be  held 
by  Homage,  and  the  Payment  of  one  Fifth  of  all  Gold 
and  Silver  Ore,  which  was  referved  for  all  Services, 
Duties,  and  Demands. 

Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  under  this  Charter,  took  Poffeffion 
of  North  America,  upon  that  Part  of  the  Continent 
which  gave  him  a  Right  to  the  Tract  of  Country  which 
lies  between  the  twenty  fifth  Degree  of  Latitude  and 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence;  but  a  Variety  of  Accidents 
happening  in  the  Courfe  of  his  Exertions  to  eftabliih  a 
Colony,  and  perhaps  being  overborn  by  the  Expenfe 
of  fo  great  a  Work,  he  made  an  Affignment  to  divers 
Gentlemen  and  Merchants  of  London,  in  the  3ift  Year 
of  the  Queen's  Reign,  for  continuing  his  Plantation  in 
America.  Thefe  Affignees  were  not  more  fuccefsful  in 
their  Attempts  than  the  Proprietor  himfelf  had  been; 
but  being  animated  with  the  Expectation  of  mighty 
Advantages  from  the  Accomplifhment  of  their  Under 
taking,  they,  with  others,  who  affociated  with  them, 
obtained  new  Charters  from  King  James  the  Firft,  in 
whom  all  Sir  Walter  Raleigh's  Rights  became  vefted 
upon  his  Attainder;  containing  the  fame  extenfive 
Jurifdictions,  Royalties,  Privileges,  Franchifes,  and 
Pre-eminences,  and  the  fame  Powers  to  eftabliih  a  civil 
Government  in  the  Colony,  as  had  been  granted  to  Sir 
W.  Raleigh,  with  an  exprefs  Claufe  of  Exemption  for 
ever  from  all  Taxes  or  Impofitions  upon  their  Import 
and  Export  Trade. 

Under  thefe  Charters  the  Proprietors  effectually  pro- 
fecuted,  and  happily  fucceeded,  in  planting  a  Colony 
upon  that  Part  of  the  Continent  which  is  now  called 


Virginia.  This  Colony,  after  ftruggling  through  im- 
menfe  Difficulties,  without  receiving  the  leaft  Affifiance 
from  the  Englifh  Government,  attained  to  fuch  a  De 
gree  of  Perfection  that  in  the  Year  1621  a  General 
Affembly,  or  legiflative  Authority,  was  eftablifhed  in 
the  Governour,  Council,  and  Houfe  of  Burgeffes,  who 
were  elected  by  the  Freeholders  as  their  Reprefentatives; 
and  they  have  continued  from  that  Time  to  exercife  the 
Power  of  Legiflation  over  the  Colony. 

But  upon  the  I5th  of  July,  1624,  King  James  dif- 
folved  the  Company  by  Proclamation,  and  took  the 
Colony  under  his  immediate  Dependence;  which  occa- 
fioned  much  Confufion,  and  created  mighty  Appre- 
henfions  in  the  Colony  left  they  mould  be  deprived  of 
the  Rights  and  Privileges  granted  them  by  the  Com 
pany,  according  to  the  Powers  contained  in  their 
Charters. 

To  put  an  End  to  this  Confufion,  and  to  conciliate 
the  Colony  to  the  new  Syftem  of  Government  the  Crown 
intended  to  eftablifh  among  them,  K.  Charles  the  Firft, 
upon  the  Demife  of  his  Father,  by  Proclamation  the 
1 3th  of  May,  1625,  declared  "  that  Virginia  mould 
'  be  immediately  dependent  upon  the  Crown;  that 
"  the  Affairs  of  the  Colony  mould  be  vefted  in  a 
"  Council,  confifting  of  a  few  Perfons  of  Underftand- 
"  ing  and  Quality,  to  be  fubordinate  and  attendant  to 
;<  the  Privy  Council  in  England;  that  he  was  refolved 
'  to  eftablifh  another  Council  in  Virginia,  to  be  fub- 
"  ordinate  to  the  Council  in  England  for  the  Colony; 
"  and  that  he  would  maintain  the  neceffary  Officers, 
"  Minifters,  Forces,  Ammunition,  and  Fortifications 
"  thereof,  at  his  own  Charge."  But  this  Proclamation 
had  an  Effect  quite  different  from  what  was  intended; 

C 


[     18     ]       t 

inftead  of  allaying,  it  increafed  the  Confusion  of  the 
Colony;  they  now  thought  their  regular  Conftitution 
was  to  be  deftroyed,  and  a  Prerogative  Government 
eftablifhed  over  them;  or,  as  they  exprefs  themfelves 
in  their  Remonftrance,  that  "  their  Rights  and  Privi- 
"  leges  were  to  be  affaulted."  This  general  Difquie- 
tude  and  Diffatisfa6Hon  continued  until  they  received  a 
Letter  from  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council,  dated 
July  the  22d,  1634,  containing  the  Royal  Affurance 
and  Confirmation  that  "  all  their  Eftates,  Trade, 
"  Freedom,  and  Privileges,  mould  be  enjoyed  by  them 
"  in  as  extenfive  a  Manner  as  they  enjoyed  them  before 
"  the  recalling  the  Company's  Patent;"  whereupon 
they  became  reconciled,  and  began  again  to  exert 
themfelves  in  the  Improvement  of  the  Colony. 

Being  now  in  full  PofTeffion  of  the  Rights  and  Pri 
vileges  of  Engli/bmen,  which  they  efteemed  more  than 
their  Lives,  their  Affection  for  the  Royal  Government 
grew  almoft  to  Enthufiafm;  for  upon  an  Attempt  to 
reftore  the  Company's  Charter  by  Authority  of  Parli 
ament,  the  General  Affembly,  upon  the  ift  of  April, 
1642,  drew  up  a  Declaration  or  Proteftation,  in  the 
Form  of  an  Act,  by  which  they  declared  "  they  never 
"  would  fubmit  to  the  Government  of  any  Company 
"  or  Proprietor,  or  to  fo  unnatural  a  Diftance  as  a 
"  Company  or  other  Perfon  to  interpofe  between  the 
"  Crown  and  the  Subjects;  that  they  were  born  under 
"  Monarchy,  and  would  never  degenerate  from  the 
"  Condition  of  their  Births  by  being  fubject  to  any 
"  other  Government;  and  every  Perfon  who  mould 
"  attempt  to  reduce  them  under  any  other  Government 
"  was  declared  an  Enemy  to  the  Country,  and  his 
"  Eftate  was  to  be  forfeited."  This  Act,  being  pre- 
fented  to  the  King,  at  his  Court  at  York,  July  5th,  1644 


[     19    ] 

drew  from  him  a  moft  gracious  Anfwer,  under  his 
Royal  Signet,  in  which  he  gave  them  the  fulleft  Af- 
furances  that  they  fhould  be  always  immediately  depen 
dent  upon  the  Crown,  and  that  the  Form  of  Govern 
ment  fhould  never  be  changed.  But  after  the  King's 
Death  they  gave  a  more  eminent  Inftance  of  their  At 
tachment  to  Royal  Government,  in  their  Oppofition 
to  the  Parliament,  and  forcing  the  Parliament  Com- 
miflioners,  who  were  fent  over  with  a  Squadron  of  Ships 
of  War  to  take  PoffefTion  of  the  Country,  into  Articles 
of  Surrender,  before  they  would  fubmit  to  their  Obedi 
ence.  As  thefe  Articles  reflect  no  fmall  Honour  upon 
this  Infant  Colony,  and  as  they  are  not  commonly 
known,  I  will  give  an  Abftract  of  fuch  of  them  as  relate 
to  the  prefent  Subject. 

1.  The  Plantation  of  Virginia,  and  all  the  Inhabitants 
thereof,  fhall  be  and  remain  in  due  Subjection  to  the 
Commonwealth    of    England,    not    as    a    conquered 
Country,  but  as  a  Country  fubmitting  by  their  own 
voluntary  Act,  and  fhall  enjoy  fuch  Freedoms  and 
Privileges  as  belong  to  the  free  People  of  England 

2.  The  General  AfTembly  as  formerly  fhall  convene, 
and  tranfact  the  Affairs  of  the  Colony. 

3.  The  People  of  Virginia  fhall  have  a  free  Trade,  as 
the  People  of  England,  to  all  Places,  and  with  all 
Nations. 

4.  Virginia   fhall   be  free  from   all  Taxes,   Cuftoms, 
and    Impofitions    whatfoever;  and    none    fhall    be 
impofed  on  them  without  Confent  of  the  General 
Affembly;  and    that    neither    Forts    nor   Caftles    be 
erected,  or  Garrifons  maintained,  without  their  Con 
fent. 

Upon  this  Surrender  of  the  Colony  to  the  Parliament, 
Sir  W .  Berkley,  the  Royal  Governour,  was  removed, 


I      20      J 

and  three  other  Governours  were  fucceffively  elected  by 
the  Houfe  of  Burgeffes;  but  in  January  1659  Sir 
William  Berkeley  was  replaced  at  the  Head  of  the  Go 
vernment  by  the  People,  who  unanimoufly  renounced 
their  Obedience  to  the  Parliament,  and  reftored  the 
Royal  Authority  by  proclaiming  Charles  the  2d  King 
of  England,  Scotland,  France,  Ireland,  and  Virginia; 
fo  that  he  was  King  in  Virginia  fome  Time  before  he 
had  any  certain  Affurance  of  being  reftored  to  his 
Throne  in  England. 

From  this  Detail  of  the  Charters,  and  other  Acts  of 
the  Crown,  under  which  the  firft  Colony  in  North 
America  was  eftablilhed,  it  is  evident  that  "  the  Co- 
c  lonifts  were  not  a  few  unhappy  Fugitives  who  had 
"  wandered  into  a  diftant  Part  of  the  World  to  enjoy 
"  their  civil  and  religious  Liberties,  which  they  were 
"  deprived  of  at  home,"  but  had  a  regular  Government 
long  before  the  firft  Act  of  Navigation,  and  were 
refpedled  as  a  diftinct  State,  independent,  as  to  their 
internal  Government,  of  the  original  Kingdom,  but 
united  with  her,  as  to  their  external  Polity,  in  the 
clofeft  and  moft  intimate  LEAGUE  AND  AMITY,  under 
the  fame  Allegiance,  and  enjoying  the  Benefits  of  a 
reciprocal  Intercourfe. 

But  allow  me  to  make  a  Reflection  or  two  upon  the 
preceding  Account  of  the  firft  Settlement  of  an  Englijh 
Colony  in  North  America. 

America  w£4  no  Part  of  the  Kingdom  of  England; 
it  was  poffeffed  by  a  favage  People,  fcattered  through 
the  Country,  who  were  not  fubject  to  the  Englijh  Do 
minion,  nor  owed  Obedience  to  its  Laws.  This  inde 
pendent  Country  was  fettled  by  Englijhmen  at  their  own 
Expenfe,  under  particular  Stipulations  with  the  Crown: 
Thefe  Stipulations  then  muft  be  the  facred  Band  of 


Union  between  England  and  her  Colonies,  and  cannot 
be  infringed  without  Injuftice.  But  you  Object  that 
'  no  Power  can  abridge  the  Authority  of  Parliament, 
"  which  has  never  exempted  any  from  the  Submiffion 
"  they  owe  to  it;  and  no  other  Power  can  grant  fuch 
"  an  Exemption." 

I  will  not  difpute  the  Authority  of  the  Parliament, 
which  is  without  Doubt  fupreme  within  the  Body  of 
the  Kingdom,  and  cannot  be  abridged  by  any  other 
Power;  but  may  not  the  King  have  Prerogatives  which 
he  has  a  Right  to  exercife  without  the  Confent  of  Par- 
liament?  If  he  has,  perhaps  that  of  granting  Licenfe 
to  his  Subjects  to  remove  into  a  new  Country,  and  to 
fettle  therein  upon  particular  Conditions,  may  be  one. 
If  he  has  no  fuch  Prerogative,  I  cannot  difcover  how 
the  Royal  Engagements  can  be  made  good,  that  "  the 
"  Freedom  and  other  Benefits  of  the  Britijb  Conftitu- 
"  tion"  mail  be  fecured  to  thofe  People  who  mail 
fettle  in  a  new  Country  under  fuch  Engagements;  the 
Freedom,  and  other  Benefits  of  the  Britijb  Conftitution, 
cannot  be  fecured  to  a  People  without  they  are  ex 
empted  from  being  taxed  by  any  Authority  but  that  of 
their  Reprefentatives,  chofen  by  themfelves.  This  is 
an  eifential  Part  of  Britijb  Freedom;  but  if  the  King 
cannot  grant  fuch  an  Exemption,  in  Right  of  his  Pre 
rogative,  the  Royal  Promifes  cannot  be  fulfilled;  and 
all  Charters  which  have  been  granted  by  our  former 
Kings,  for  this  Purpofe,  muft  be  Deceptions  upon  the 
Subjects  who  accepted  them,  which  to  fay  would  be  a 
high  Reflection  upon  the  Honour  of  the  Crown.  But 
there  was  a  Time  when  fome  Parts  of  England  itfelf 
were  exempt  from  the  Laws  of  Parliament:  The  In 
habitants  of  the  County  Palatine  of  Chefler  were  not 


[      22      ] 

fubject  to  fuch  Laws*  ab  antiquo,  becaufe  they  did  not 
fend  Reprefentatives  to  Parliament,  but  had  their  own 
Commune  Concilium;  by  whofe  Authority,  with  the 
Confent  of  their  Earl,  their  Laws  were  made.  If  this 
Exemption  was  not  derived  orginally  from  the  Crown, 
it  muft  have  arifen  from  that  great  Principle  in  the 
Britijh  Conftitution  by  which  the  Freemen  in  the  Nation 
are  not  fubject  to  any  Laws  but  fuch  as  are  made  by 
Reprefentatives  elected  by  themfelves  to  Parliament; 
so  that,  in  either  Cafe,  it  is  an  Inftance  extremely  ap 
plicable  to  the  Colonies,  who  contend  for  no  other 
Right  but  that  of  directing  their  internal  Government 
by  Laws  made  with  their  own  Confent,  which  has  been 
preferved  to  them  by  repeated  Acts  and  Declarations  of 
the  Crown. 

The  Conftitution  of  the  Colonies,  being  eftablifhed 
upon  the  Principles  of  Britijh  Liberty,  has  never  been 
infringed  by  the  immediate  Act  of  the  Crown;  but 
the  Powers  of  Government,  agreeably  to  this  Confti 
tution,  have  been  conftantly  declared  in  the  King's 
CommifTions  to  their  Governours,  which,  as  often  as 
they  pafs  the  Great  Seal,  are  new  Declarations  and 
Confirmations  of  the  Rights  of  the  Colonies.  Even  in 
the  Reign  of  Charles  the  Second,  a  Time  by  no  Means 
favourable  to  Liberty,  thefe  Rights  of  the  Colonies 
were  maintained  inviolate;  for  when  it  was  thought 
necefTary  to  eftablifh  a  permanent  Revenue  for  the 
Support  of  Government  in  Virginia,  the  King  did  not 
apply  to  the  Englijh  Parliament,  but  to  the  General 
Affembly,  and  fent  over  an  Act,  under  the  Great  Seal 
of  England,  by  which  it  was  enacted  "  by  the  King's 
"  Moft  Excellent  Majefty,  by  and  with  the  Confent 
"  of  the  General  Affembly,"  that  two  Shillings  per 

*  Petyfs  Rights  of  the  Commons.    King's  Vale  Royal  of  England. 


[      23      ] 

Hogfhead  upon  all  Tobacco  exported,  one  Shilling 
and  Threepence  per  Tun  upon  Shipping,  and  Sixpence 
per  Poll  for  every  Perfon  imported,  not  being  actually 
a  Mariner  in  Pay,  were  to  be  paid  for  ever  as  a  Revenue 
for  the  Support  of  the  Government  in  the  Colony. 

I  have  taken  Notice  of  this  Act,  not  only  becaufe 
it  mows  the  proper  Fountain  from  whence  all  Supplies 
to  be  raifed  in  the  Colonies  ought  to  flow,  but  alfo  as 
it  aifords  an  Inftance  that  Royalty  itfelf  did  not  difdain 
formerly  to  be  named  as  a  Part  of  the  Legiflature  of 
the  Colony;  though  now,  to  ferve  a  Purpofe  deftructive 
of  their  Rights,  and  to  introduce  Principles  of  Defpotifm 
unknown  to  a  free  Conftitution,  the  Legiflature  of  the 
Colonies  are  degraded  even  below  the  Corporation  of 
a  petty  Borough  in  England. 

It  muft  be  admitted  that  after  the  Reftoration  the 
Colonies  loft  that  Liberty  of  Commerce  with  foreign 
Nations  they  had  enjoyed  before  that  Time. 

As  it  became  a  fundamental  Law  of  the  other  States 
of  Europe  to  prohibit  all  foreign  Trade  with  their  Co 
lonies,  England  demanded  fuch  an  exclufive  Trade 
with  her  Colonies.  This  was  effected  by  the  Act  of 
2^th  Charles  2d,  and  fome  other  fubfequent  Acts; 
which  not  only  circumfcribed  the  Trade  of  the  Colonies 
with  foreign  Nations  within  very  narrow  Limits,  but 
impofed  Duties  upon  feveral  Articles  of  their  own  Ma 
nufactory  exported  from  one  Colony  to  another.  Thefe 
Acts,  which  impofed  feverer  Reftrictions  upon  the 
Trade  of  the  Colonies  than  were  impofed  upon  the 
Trade  of  England,  deprived  the  Colonies,  fo  far  as 
thefe  Reftrictions  extended,  of  the  Privileges  of  Englifb 
Subjects,  and  conftituted  an  unnatural  Difference  be 
tween  Men  under  the  fame  Allegiance,  born  equally- 
free,  and  entitled  to  the  fame  civil  Rights.  In  this 


[       24      ] 

Light  did  the  People  of  Virginia  view  the  Adi  of  25th 
Charles  2d,  when  they  fent  Agents  to  the  Englifb  Court 
to  reprefent  againft  "  Taxes  and  Impofitions  being  laid 
"  on  the  Colony  by  any  Authority  but  that  of  their 
"  General  Affembly."  The  Right  of  impofmg  internal 
Duties  upon  their  Trade  by  Authority  of  Parliament 
was  then  difputed,  though  you  fay  it  was  never  called 
into  Queftion;  and  the  Agents  fent  from  Virginia  upon 
this  Occafion  obtained  a  Declaration  from  Charles  2d 
the  iQth  of  April  1676,  under  his  Privy  Seal,  that 
Impofitions  or  "  Taxes  ought  not  be  laid  upon  the 
"  Inhabitants  and  Proprietors  of  the  Colony  but  by  the 
;<  common  Confent  of  the  General  Affembly,  except 
:<  fuch  Impofitions  as  the  Parliament  mould  lay  on 
:t  the  Commodities  imported  into  England  from  the 
:<  Colony:"  And  he  ordered  a  Charter  to  be  made  out, 
and  to  pafs  the  Great  Seal,  for  fecuring  this  Right, 
among  others,  to  the  Colony. 

But  whether  the  Adi  of  25th  Charles  2d,  or  any  of 
the  other  Acts,  have  been  complained  of  as  Infringe 
ments  of  the  Rights  of  the  Colonies  or  not,  is  imma 
terial;  for  if  a  Man  of  fuperiour  Strength  takes  my 
Coat  from  me,  that  cannot  give  him  a  Right  to  my 
Cloak,  nor  am  I  obliged  to  fubmit  to  be  deprived  of 
all  my  Eftate  becaufe  I  may  have  given  up  fome  Part 
of  it  without  Complaint.  Befides,  I  have  proved  irre- 
fragably  that  the  Colonies  are  not  reprefented  in  Parlia 
ment,  and  confequently,  upon  your  own  Pofition,  that 
no  new  Law  can  bind  them  that  is  made  without  the 
Concurrence  of  their  Reprefentatives;  and  if  fo,  then 
every  Act  of  Parliament  that  impofes  internal  Taxes 
upon  the  Colonies  is  an  Adi  of  Power,  and  not  of 
Right.  I  muff  fpeak  freely,  I  am  confidering  a  Question 
which  affects  the  Rights  of  above  two  Millions  of  as 


1       25      J 

loyal  Subjects  as  belong  to  the  Britifh  Crown,  and  muft 
ufe  Terms  adequate  to  the  Importance  of  it;  I  fay  that 
Power  abftracted  from  Right  cannot  give  a  juft  Title 
to  Dominion.  If  a  Man  invades  my  Property,  he 
becomes  an  AggrefTor,  and  puts  himfelf  into  a  State 
of  War  with  me:  I  have  a  Right  to  oppofe  this  Invader; 
If  I  have  not  Strength  to  repel  him,  I  muft  fubmit, 
but  he  acquires  no  Right  to  my  Eftate  which  he  has 
ufurped.  Whenever  I  recover  Strength  I  may  renew 
my  Claim,  and  attempt  to  regain  my  PofTeffion;  if  I 
am  never  ftrong  enough,  my  Son,  or  his  Son,  may, 
when  able,  recover  the  natural  Right  of  his  Anceftor 
which  has  been  unjuftly  taken  from  him. 

I  hope  I  mall  not  be  charged  with  Infolence,  in  de 
livering  the  Sentiments  of  an  honeft  Mind  with  Free 
dom:  I  am  fpeaking  of  the  Rights  of  a  People;  Rights 
imply  Equality  in  the  Inftances  to  which  they  belong, 
and  muft  be  treated  without  Refpect  to  the  Dignity  of 
the  Perfons  concerned  in  them.  If  "  the  Britijb  Em- 
"  pire  in  Europe  and  in  America  is  the  fame  Power" 
if  the  "  Subjects  in  both  are  the  fame  People,  and  all 
;<  equally  participate  in  the  Adverfity  and  Profperity 
"  of  the  Whole,"  what  Diftindtions  can  the  Difference 
of  their  Situations  make,  and  why  is  this  Diftinction 
made  between  them?  Why  is  the  Trade  of  the  Colonies 
more  circumfcribed  than  the  Trade  of  Britain?  And 
why  are  Impofitions  laid  upon  the  one  which  are  not 
laid  upon  the  other?  If  the  Parliament  "  have  a  Right 
'  to  impofe  Taxes  of  every  Kind  upon  the  Colonies," 
they  ought  in  Juftice,  as  the  fame  People,  to  have  the 
fame  Sources  to  raife  them  from:  Their  Commerce 
ought  to  be  equally  free  with  the  Commerce  of  Britain, 
otherwife  it  will  be  loading  them  with  Burthens  at  the 

D 


[    26    ] 

fame  Time  that  they  are  deprived  of  Strength  to  fuftain 
them;  it  will  be  forcing  them  to  make  Bricks  without 
Straw.  I  acknowledge  the  Parliament  is  the  fovereign 
legiflative  Power  of  the  Britijh  Nation,  and  that  by  a 
full  Exertion  of  their  Power  they  can  deprive  the  Co 
lonifts  of  the  Freedom  and  other  Benefits  of  the  Britijh 
Conftitution  which  have  been  fecured  to  them  by  our 
Kings;  they  can  abrogate  all  their  civil  Rights  and 
Liberties ;  but  by  what  Right  is  it  that  the  Parliament 
can  exercife  fuch  a  Power  over  the  Colonifts,  who  have 
as  natural  a  Right  to  the  Liberties  and  Privileges  of 
Englijhmen  as  if  they  were  actually  refident  within  the 
Kingdom?  The  Colonies  are  fubordinate  to  the  Au 
thority  of  Parliament;  fubordinate  I  mean  in  Degree, 
but  not  abfolutely  fo:  For  if  by  a  Vote  of  the  Britijh 
Senate  the  Colonifts  were  to  be  delivered  up  to  the 
Rule  of  a  French  or  Turkifh  Tyranny,  they  may  refufe 
Obedience  to  fuch  a  Vote,  and  may  oppofe  the  Execution 
of  it  by  Force.  Great  is  the  Power  of  Parliament, 
but,  great  as  it  is,  it  cannot,  conftitutionally,  deprive 
the  People  of  their  natural  Rights;  nor,  in  Virtue  of 
the  fame  Principle,  can  it  deprive  them  of  their  civil 
Rights,  which  are  founded  in  Compact,  without  their 
own  Confent.  There  is,  I  confefs,  a  confiderable 
Difference  between  thefe  two  Cafes  as  to  the  Right  of 
Refiftance:  In  the  firft,  if  the  Colonifts  mould  be  dif- 
membered  from  the  Nation  by  Act  of  Parliament,  and 
abandoned  to  another  Power,  they  have  a  natural  Right 
to  defend  their  Liberties  by  open  Force,  and  may  law 
fully  refift;  and,  if  they  are  able,  repel  the  Power  to 
whofe  Authority  they  are  abandoned.  But  in  the  other, 
if  they  are  deprived  of  their  civil  Rights,  if  great  and 
manifeft  Oppreffions  are  impofed  upon  them  by  the 
State  on  which  they  are  dependent,  their  Remedy  is  to 


lay  their  Complaints  at  the  Foot  of  the  Throne,  and 
to  fuffer  patiently  rather  than  difturb  the  publick  Peace, 
which  nothing  but  a  Denial  of  Juftice  can  excuse  them 
in  breaking.  But  if  this  Juftice  mould  be  denied,  if 
the  moft  humble  and  dutiful  Reprefentations  mould  be 
rejected,  nay  not  even  deigned  to  be  received,  what  is 
to  be  done?  To  fuch  a  Queftion  Thucydides  would  make 
the  Corinthians  reply,  that  if  "  a  decent  and  condef- 
:c  cending  Behaviour  is  mown  on  the  Part  of  the  Co- 

1  lonies,  it  would  be  bafe  in  the  Mother  State  to  prefs 
"  too  far  on  fuch  Moderation:"  And  he  would  make 
the  Corcyreans  anfwer,  that  "  every  Colony,  whilft 

6  ufed  in  a  proper  Manner,  ought  to  pay  Honour  and 
"  Regard  to  its  Mother  State;  but,  when  treated  with 
"  Injury  and  Violence,  is  become  an  Alien.  They 
"  were  not  fent  out  to  be  the  Slaves,  but  to  be  the 
"  Equals  of  thofe  that  remain  behind." 

But,  according  to  your  Scheme,  the  Colonies  are  to 
be  prohibited  from  uniting  in  a  Reprefentation  of  their 
general  Grievances  to  the  common  Sovereign.  This 
Moment  "  the  Britifh  Empire  in  Europe  and  in  America 

6  is  the  fame  Power;  its  Subjects  in  both  are  the  fame 
:f  People;  each  is  equally  important  to  the  other,  and 

'  mutual  Benefits,  mutual  Neceffities,  cement  their 
"  Connexion."  The  next  Moment  "  the  Colonies 
"  are  unconnected  with  each  other,  different  in  their 
"  Manners,  oppofite  in  their  Principles,  and  clam  in 

c  their  Interefts  and  in  their  Views,  from  Rivalry  in 

:  Trade,  and  the  Jealoufy  of  Neighbourhood.  This 
"  happy  Divifion,  which  was  effected  by  Accident, 
"  is  to  be  continued  throughout  by  Defign;  and  all 
:i  Bond  of  Union  between  them"  is  excluded  from 
your  vaft  Syftem.  Divide  et  impera  is  your  Maxim  in 
Colony  Adminiftration,  left  "  an  Alliance  fhould  be 


[     28     ] 

"  formed  dangerous  to  the  Mother  Country."  Un 
generous  Infmuation!  deteftable  Thought!  abhorrent 
to  every  Native  of  the  Colonies!  who,  by  an  Unifor 
mity  of  Conduct,  have  ever  demonftrated  the  deepeft 
Loyalty  to  their  King,  as  the  Father  of  his  People,  and 
an  unfhaken  Attachment  to  the  Intereft  of  Great  Britain. 
But  you  muft  entertain  a  moft  defpicable  Opinion  of 
the  Understandings  of  the  Colonifts  to  imagine  that  they 
will  allow  Divifions  to  be  fomented  between  them  about 
inconfiderable  Things,  when  the  clofeft  Union  becomes 
neceffary  to  maintain  in  a  conftitutional  Way  their 
deareft  Interefts. 

Another  Writer*,  fond  of  his  new  Syftem  of  placing 
Great  Britain  as  the  Centre  of  Attraction  to  the  Colo 
nies,  fays  that  "  they  muft  be  guarded  againft  having 
"  or  forming  any  Principle  of  Coherence  with  each 
"  other  above  that  whereby  they  cohere  in  the  Centre; 
"  having  no  other  Principle  of  Intercommunication 
"  between  each  other  than  that  by  which  they  are  in 
"  joint  Communication  with  Great  Britain,  as  the 
:<  common  Centre  of  all.  At  the  fame  Time  that  they 
"  are  each,  in  their  refpe6Hve  Parts  and  Subordinations, 
"  fo  framed  as  to  be  acted  by  this  firft  Mover,  they 
"  mould  always  remain  incapable  of  any  Coherence, 
"  or  of  fo  confpiring  amongft  themfelves  as  to  create 
"  any  other  equal  Force  which  might  recoil  back  on 
'  this  firft  Mover;  nor  is  it  more  neceffary  to  preferve 
"  the  feveral  Governments  fubordinate  within  their 
"  refpective  Orbs  than  it  is  effential  to  the  Prefervation 
"  of  the  Empire  to  keep  them  difconnected  and  inde- 
"  pendent  of  each  other."  But  how  is  this  "  Principle 
"  of  Coherence,"  as  this  elegant  Writer  calls  it,  be 
tween  the  Colonies,  to  be  prevented?  The  Colonies 

*   'The  Adminiftration  of  the  Colonies  by  Governour  Pownall. 


I  29  J 

upon  the  Continent  of  North  America  lie  united  to  each 
other  in  one  Tract  of  Country,  and  are  equally  con 
cerned  to  maintain  their  common  Liberty.  If  he  will 
attend  then  to  the  Laws  of  Attraction  in  natural  as  well 
as  political  Philofophy,  he  will  find  that  Bodies  in 
Contact,  and  cemented  by  mutual  Interefts,  cohere 
more  ftrongly  than  thofe  which  are  at  a  Diftance,  and 
have  no  common  Interefts  to  preferve.  But  this  natural 
Law  is  to  be  deftroyed;  and  the  Colonies,  whofe  real 
Interefts  are  the  fame,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  united 
in  the  clofeft  Communication,  are  to  be  disjoined,  and 
all  intercommunication  between  them  prevented.  But 
how  is  this  Syftem  of  Adminiftration  to  be  eftablifhed? 
Is  it  to  be  done  by  a  military  Force,  quartered  upon 
private  Families?  Is  it  to  be  done  by  extending  the 
Jurifdiction  of  Courts  of  Admiralty,  and  thereby  de 
priving  the  Colonifts  of  legal  Trials  in  the  Courts  of 
common  Law?  Or  is  it  to  be  done  by  haraffiing  the 
Colonifts,  and  giving  overbearing  Taxgatherers  an  Op 
portunity  of  ruining  Men,  perhaps  better  Subjects  than 
themfelves,  by  dragging  them  from  one  Colony  to 
another,  before  Prerogative  Judges,  exercifmg  a  def- 
potick  Sway  in  Inquifitorial  Courts?  Oppreffion  has 
produced  very  great  and  unexpected  Events:  The 
Helvetick  Confederacy,  the  States  of  the  United  Ne 
therlands,  are  Inftances  in  the  Annals  of  Europe  of  the 
glorious  Actions  a  petty  People,  in  Comparifion,  can 
perform  when  united  in  the  Caufe  of  Liberty.  May 
the  Colonies  ever  remain  under  a  conftitutional  Sub 
ordination  to  Great  Britain!  It  is  their  Intereft  to  live 
under  fuch  a  Subordination;  and  it  is  their  Duty,  by 
an  Exertion  of  all  their  Strength  and  Abilities,  when 
called  upon  by  their  common  Sovereign,  to  advance 
the  Grandeur  and  the  Glory  of  the  Nation.  May  the 


I  30  J 

Interefts  of  Great  Britain  and  her  Colonies  be  ever  united 
fo  as  that  whilft  they  are  retained  in  a  legal  and  juft 
Dependence  no  unnatural  or  unlimited  Rule  may  be 
exercifed  over  them;  but  that  they  may  enjoy  the 
Freedom,  and  other  Benefits  of  the  Britijb  Constitution, 
to  the  lateft  Page  in  Hiftory! 

I  flatter  myfelf,  by  what  has  been  faid,  your  Pofition 
of  a  virtual  Reprefentation  is  lufficiently  refuted;  and 
that  there  is  really  no  fuch  Reprefentation  known  in 
the  Britijb  Conftitution,  and  confequently  that  the  Co 
lonies  are  not  fubject  to  an  internal  Taxation  by  Au 
thority  of  Parliament. 

I  could  extend  this  Inquiry  to  a  much  greater  Length, 
by  examining  into  the  Policy  of  the  late  Acts  of  Par 
liament,  which  impofe  heavy  and  fevere  Taxes,  Duties, 
and  Prohibitions,  upon  the  Colonies;  I  could  point 
out  fome  very  difagreeable  Confequences,  refpecting 
the  Trade  and  Manufacturers  of  Britain,  which  muft 
neceffarily  refult  from  thefe  Acts;  I  could  prove  that 
the  Revenues  arifing  from  the  Trade  of  the  Colonies, 
and  the  Advantage  of  their  Exports  to  Great  Britain  in 
the  Balance  of  her  Trade  with  foreign  Nations,  exceed 
infinitely  all  the  Expenfe  me  has  been  at,  all  the  Ex- 
penfe  me  can  be  at,  in  their  Protection;  and  perhaps 
I  could  mow  that  the  Bounties  given  upon  fome  Articles 
exported  from  the  Colonies  were  not  intended,  prima 
rily,  as  Inftances  of  Attention  to  their  Intereft,  but  arofe 
as  well  from  the  Confideration  of  the  difadvantageous 
Dependence  of  Great  Britain  upon  other  Nations  for 
the  principal  Articles  of  her  naval  Stores,  as  from  her 
lofmg  Trade  for  thofe  Articles;  I  could  demonftrate 
that  thefe  Bounties  are  by  no  Means  adequate  to  her 
Savings  in  fuch  foreign  Trade,  if  the  Articles  upon 
which  they  are  given  can  be  procured  from  the  Colonies 


in  Quantities  fufficient  to  anfwer  her  Confumption;  and 
that  the  Excefs  of  thefe  Savings  is  fo  much  clear  Profit 
to  the  Nation,  upon  the  Suppofition  that  thefe  Bounties 
are  drawn  from  it;  but,  as  they  will  remain  in  it,  and 
be  laid  out  in  its  Manufactures  and  Exports,  that  the 
whole  Sum  which  ufed  to  be  paid  to  Foreigners  for  the 
Purchafe  of  thefe  Articles  will  be  faved  to  the  Nation. 
I  fay  I  could  extend  my  Inquiry,  by  examining  thefe 
feveral  Matters;  but  as  the  Subject  is  delicate,  and 
would  carry  me  to  a  great  Length,  I  fhall  leave  them 
to  the  Reader's  own  Reflection. 


APPENDIX 

TITLES  OF  BOOKS  TO  WHICH  BLAND  REFERS 
IN  HIS  NOTES 


Brady,  Robert.  16277-1700. 

A  complete  history  of  England,  from  the  first  entrance  of  the  Romans 
under  the  conduct  of  Julius  Caesar,  unto  the  end  of  the  reign  of  King 
Henry  III.  Comprehending  the  Roman,  Saxon,  Danish  and  Norman 
affairs  and  transactions  in  this  nation  during  that  time.  Wherein  is 
shewed  the  original  of  our  English  laws,  the  differences  and  disagree 
ments  between  the  recular  and  ecclesiastic  powers,  the  true  rise  and 
grounds  of  the  contentions  and  wars  between  the  barons  and  our 
antient  kings.  And  likewise  an  account  of  our  foreign  wars  with 
France,  the  conquest  of  Ireland,  and  the  actions  between  the  English, 
Scots  and  Welsh,  during  the  rame  time.  All  delivered  in  plain  matter 
of  fact,  without  any  reflections  or  remarques.  By  Robert  Brady  . . . 
[London!  in  the  Savoy,  Printed  by  T.  Newcomb  for  S  Lowndes,  1685. 

6  p.  1.,  Ixviii,  [8],  675,  254,  [67]  p.  front,  (port.)  33cm. 

"A  catalogue  of  authors  used  in  this  history":  [8]  p.  following  p. 
Ixviii.  Appendix  of  official  documents  (charters,  letters,  proclamations, 
etc.)  in  Latin,  some  with  English  translation.  In  1700  the  author 
issued  a  supplementary  volume  under  title:  Continuation  of  the  Com 
plete  history  of  England. 

Brady  Robert,  16277-1700. 

A  continuation  of  the  Complete  history  of  England:  containing  the 
lives  and  reigns  of  Edward  I.  II.  &  III.  and  Richard  the  Second.  By 
Robert  Brady  . . .  [London]  in  the  Savoy,  Printed  by  E.  Jones  for 
S.  Lowndes  [etc.]  1700. 

1  p.  1.,  467,  [2],  139,  [24]  p.  32icm.  "Authors  and  records  fr,om 
whence  the  materials  are  taken":  1  p.  following  p.  467.  Appendix  of 
official  documents  in  Latin,  French  and  English. 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  1552-1634. 

The  first  part  of  the  Tnstitvtes  of  the  lawes  of  England.  Or,  A  com- 
mentarie  vpon  Littleton,  not  the  name  of  a  lawyer  onely,  but  of  the 
law  it  selfe  4..  Haec  ego  grandaeuus  posui  tibi  candide  lector. 
Authore  Edw.  Coke,  milite.  London,  Printed  for  the  Societie  of  sta 
tioners,  1628. 

7  p.  1.,  395  numb.  1.,  1  1.    fold.  tab.    28icm. 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  1552-1634. 

The  second  part  of  the  Institutes  of  the  lawes  of  England.  Con 
taining  the  exposition  of  many  ancient,  and  other  statutes;  whereof 
you  may  see  the  particulars  in  a  table  following  . . .  Authore  Edw. 
Coke,  milite,  I.  c.  Hsec  ego  grandaevus  posui  tibi,  candide  lector.  Lon 
don,  Printed  by  M.  Flesher,  and  R.  Young,  for  E.  D.,  R.  M.,  W.  L., 
and  D.  P.,  1642. 

5  p.  1.,  745,  [1]  p.,  1  1.    28Jcm. 


[    34    ] 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  1552-1634. 

The  third  part  of  the  Institutes  of  the  laws  of  England:  concerning 
high  treason,  and  other  pleas  of  the  crown,  and  criminall  causes  . . . 
Authore  Edw.  Coke,  milite,  i.  c.  Hsec  ego  grandaevus  posui  tibi,  candide 
lector.  London,  Printed  by  M.  Flesher,  for  W.  Lee,  and  D.  Pakeman, 
1644. 

5  p.  L,  243,  [18]  p.   28icm. 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  1552-1634. 

The  fourth  part  of  the  Institutes  of  the  laws  of  England :  concerning 
the  jurisdiction  of  courts  . . .  Authore  Edw.  Coke,  milite,  I.  C.  Haee 
ego  grandaevus  posui  tibi,  candide  lector.  London,  Printed  by  M. 
Flesher,  for  W.  Lee,  and  D.  Pakeman,  1644. 

7  p.  1.,  364,  [35]  p.    front,  (port.)    28£cm. 

[Dickinson,  John]  1732-1808. 

The  late  regulations  respecting  the  British  colonies  on  the  conti 
nent  of  America  considered,  in  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  in  Philadel 
phia  to  his  friend  in  London  . . .  Philadelphia,  printed;  London,  Re 
printed,  for  J.  Almon,  1765. 

62  p.  211cm 

[Dickinson,  John]    1732-1808. 

The  late  regulations  respecting  the  British  colonies  on  the  conti 
nent  of  America  considered,  in  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  in  Philadel 
phia  to  his  friend  in  London  . . .  Philadelphia,  Printed  and  sold  by 
W.  Bradford,  1765. 

38  p.    19|cm. 

[Dickinson,  John]    1732-1808. 

The  late  regulations  respecting  the  British  colonies  on  the  conti 
nent  of  America  considered,  in  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  in  Philadel 
phia  to  his  friend  in  London  . . .  Philadelphia,  printed;  London,  Re 
printed  for  J.  Almon,  1766. 

2  p.  L,  39  p.    2lcm. 

Domat,  Jean,  1625-1696. 

The  civil  law  in  its  natural  order:  together  with  the  public  law. 
Written  in  French  by  Monsieur  Domat  . . .  and  tr.  into  English  by 
William  Strahan  . . .  With  additional  remarks  on  some  material  dif 
ferences  between  the  civil  law  and  the  law  of  England  . . .  London, 
Printed  by  J.  Bettenham,  for  E.  Bell  [etc.]  1722. 

2  v.  33cm. 

Hakluyt,  Richard,  15527-1616. 

The  principall  navigations,  voiages  and  discoveries  of  the  English 
nation,  made  by  sea  or  ouer  land,  to  the  most  remote  and  farthest 


[    35    ] 

distant  quarters  of  the  earth  at  any  time  within  the  compasse  of 
these  1500.  yeers:  deuided  into  three  seuerall  parts,  according  to  the 
positions  of  the  regions  wherunto  they  were  directed  . . .  Whereunto 
is  added  the  last  most  renowmed  English  nauigation,  round  about  the 
whole  globe  of  the  earth.  By  Richard  Hakluyt  . . .  Imprinted  at 
London  by  George  Bishop  and  Ralph  Newberrie,  deputies  to  Christopher 
Barker,  printer  to  the  Queenes  most  excellent  Maiestie,  1589. 
8  p.  1.,  643,  [12],  644-825  (i.  e.  822),  [10]  p.  28icm. 

King,  Daniel,  d.  1664,  ed. 

The  Vale-royall  of  England,  or,  The  county  palatine  of  Chester 
illustrated.  Wherein  is  contained  a  geographical  and  historical  de 
scription  of  that  famous  county  . . .  adorned  with  maps  and  prospects, 
and  the  coats  of  arms  belonging  to  every  individual  family  of  the  whole 
county.  Performed  by  William  Smith,  and  William  Webb,  gentlemen. 
Pub.  by  Mr.  Daniel  King.  To  which  is  annexed,  An  exact  chronology 
of  all  its  rulers  and  governors  both  in  church  and  state  from  the 
time  of  the  foundation  of  the  stately  city  of  Chester,  to  this  very 
day  . . .  Also,  An  excellent  discourse  of  the  Island  of  Man  . . .  Lon 
don,  Printed  by  J.  Streater,  1656. 

6  p.  1.,  99  [5]  239,  [10],  55  p.,  3  p.  1.,  34  p.  illus.,  plates,  maps  (part 
fold.)  coats  of  arms.  29cm.  The  "Chronicon  cestrense"  has  separate 
paging;  dedication  is  signed:  Samuel  Lee.  "A  short  treatise  of  the 
Isle  of  Man,  digested  into  six  chapters  ..."  has  special  t.-p.  and  paging; 
its  "Epistle  dedicatory"  is  signed:  James  Chaloner. 

Locke,  John,  1632-1704. 

An  essay  concerning  the  true  original  extent  and  end  of  civil  gov 
ernment.  By  the  late  learned  John  Locke,  esq.  Boston,  Re-printed 
and  sold  by  Edes  and  Gill  in  Queen-street,  1773. 

129  p.  18Jcm.  A  reprint  of  the  second  treatise  in  Locke's  "Two 
treatises  of  government,"  London,  1690. 

Petyt,  William,  1636-1707. 

The  antient  right  of  the  commons  of  England  asserted;  or,  A  dis- 
ciourse  proving  by  records  and  the  best  historians,  that  the  commons 
of  England  were  ever  an  essential  part  of  Parliament.  By  William 
Petyt  .  •  •  London,  Printed  for  F.  Smith  [etc.]  1680. 

5  p.  1.,  75,  184  p.  19cm. 

[Pownall,  Thomas]  1722-1805. 

The  administration  of  the  colonies.  [Part  l]  London,  Printed  for 
J.  Wilkie,  1764. 

1  p.  L,  131  p.    19cm. 

Published  anonymously.     First  edition. 


[    36    ] 

Rapin-Thoyras,  Paul  de,  1661-1725. 

The  history  of  England,  as  well  ecclesiastical  as  civil.  By.  Mr.  de 
Rapin  Thoyra?  .  . .  Done  into  English  from  the  French  ...  by  N. 
Tindal  . . .  London,  Printed  for  J.  and  J.  Knapton,  1728-32. 

15  v.  fronts,  (v.  1-10,  13,  15)  fold,  maps,  fold,  geneal,  tables,  20c™. 

"A  letter  to  Mr. containing  some  particulars  of  the  life  of  Mr. 

de  Rapin  Thoyras":  vol.  xiii,  p.  [iii]-xxiv.  "A  short  summary  of  the 
history  of  England":  v.  15.  p.  1.-144  (at  end). 

Salmon,  [Thomas]  1679-1767. 

Modern  history:  or,  The  present  state  of  all  nations,  describing 
their  respective  situations,  persons,  habits,  and  buildings;  manners, 
laws  and  customs  .  .  plants,  animals,  and  minerals.  By.  Mr.  Salmon. 
Illustrated  with  cuts  and  maps  ...  by  Herman  Moll.  The  3d  ed. 
With  considerable  additions  and  improvements  . . .  also  the  history 
and  revolutions  of  each  country,  brought  down  to  the  present  time  . . . 
London,  T.  Longman,  T.  Osborne  [etc.]  1744-46. 

3  v.    front,  plates,  ports.,  maps  (partly  fold.)    38cm. 

Squire,  Samuel,  bp.  of  St.  Davids,  1714-1766. 

An  enquiry  into  the  foundation  of  the  English  constitution;  or, 
An  historical  essay  upon  the  Anglo-Saxon  government  both  in  Ger 
many  and  England  ...  A  new  ed.  with  additions.  By  Samuel  Squire. . . 
London,  Printed  for  C.  Bathurst,  1753. 

vi,  427  p.  22icm.  Appendices:  1,  An  essay  on  the  balance  of  civil 
power  in  England;  2.  A  list  of  all  such  cities,  towns,  and  burrows,  as 
have  ever  been  summoned  to  Parliament,  with  the  date  of  their  first 
returns. 

Temple,  Sir   William,  bnrL,  1628-1699. 

The  works  of  Sir  William  Temple,  bart.  ...  To  which  is  prefixed 
the  life  and  character  of  the  author,  considerably  enl.  A  new  ed.  ... 
London,  F.  C.  and  J.  Rivington  [etc.]  1814. 

4  v.    22Jcm. 

Contents — I.  Life  of  the  author.  An  essay  on  the  original  and 
nature  of  government.  Observations  upon  the  united  Provinces  of 
the  Netherlands.  Letters  containing  an  account  of  the  most  import 
ant  transactions  that  passed  in  Christendom  from  1665  to  1672. — II. 
Sequel  of  the  author's  letters,  serving  to  supply  the  loss  of  the  first 
part  of  his  Memoirs.  A  survey  of  the  constitutions  and  interests  of 
the  Empire,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Spain,  Holland,  France,  and  Flanders 
in  1671.  A  letter  to  the  Duke  of  Ormond,  written  in  October,  1673. 
Memoirs,  pt.  II-IIL— III.  [Essays]  Poetry.— IV.  Letters  to  the  king, 
the  Prince  of  Orange,  &c.  Index. 


[    37    ] 


Vattel,  Emmerich  de,  1714-1767. 

The  law  of  nations;  or,  Principles  of  the  law  of  nature:  applied  to 
the  conduct  and  affairs  of  nations  and  sovereigns.  By  M.  de  Vattel  .  .  . 
Tr.  from  the  French  .  .  .  London,  Printed  for  J.  Newbery  [etc.]  1760, 
'59 

2  v.  in  1.    261  x 


Williams.  William  Peere. 

Reports  of  cases  argued  and  determined  in  the  High  Court  of 
Chancery,  and  of  some  special  cases  adjudged  in  the  Court  of  Kings 
Bench,  2  v.  (1740).  2d  ed.  (1746)  v.  3,  1749. 

[Wollaston,  William]  1660-1724. 

The  religion  of  nature  delineated  [London?]  printed  in  the  year 

1722. 

158  p.,  1  1.    26c™.    Privately  printed. 


RETURN        CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

198  Main  Stacks 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewls  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


4ft 


NOV  2  6  1999 


FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720-6000 


BERKELEY 


